Skip to main content

The Culture of “Excuse Me” and the PAP


It is far too common that the word ‘excuse me’ represents the right thing, right way and right attitude in Singapore.

When you are walking or jogging in the neighbourhood parks, if you hear ‘excuse me’ behind you, you have to give way to the children, or even adults cycling with their bi-cycles. Children are growing up by just saying ‘excuse me’ and they claim that they have the right to ask you to give way. 

Luckily one day, I met a man reminding his son not to do that. He told his son that walkers and joggers had the right to use the parks but not the cyclists.  But how many parents have this correct attitude under the PAP’s education of ‘excuse me’ culture?

You are driving in the city with 50, 60 or even 70 km per hour but the car behind you is still not satisfied and start flashing at you, forcing you to drive even faster. He wants to tell you that, excuse me, you are driving too slow so please don’t block my way.

How come right becomes wrong in Singapore and our culture of ‘excuse me’ has educated our children growing up not knowing right and wrong. It seems to suggest the Right is when you have power, rich and connection.

It is quite frightening but the PAP has not stopped promoting this ‘excuse me’ culture and education.   

Excuse me, are your married?

Instead of answering your question, you were asked about your personal life, how old are you? Do you have a boy friend?

Far too often in Singapore, the authority has the right to ask you questions rather than answering your questions. And surprisingly, you even think the PAP is right and is willing to provide them the answers. 

Excuse me, only 5%-6% can reach to the top

In every cohort, the PAP is telling you only few can get the top job and top salary.  And they benchmark every PAP minister to be in the top group and match their salary to the top earners in the professions and industry.

In the mind of the PAP, only these selected groups can be considered as creams and elites in our society.  Other professionals and non professionals are not important to Singapore.  

They have failed to realise that every profession has its own hero. (行行出状元)But to the PAP they have decided what are the right professions and what are the wrong professions.  No wonder our plumbers or carpenters are earning so much less than their Australian counterparts.

Excuse me, ting ting ting is coming

Ting ting ting when the PAP introduces their new candidates, they expect voters to accept them and they are the right candidates.  So, when ting ting ting comes to Marine Parade, voters must welcome her and support her as she is the right candidate.

Even the PAP is introducing the second or third tier candidates as described by Charles Chong, they want voters to accept them as first tier and they are the right choices.  

Excuse me; the government is only serving the right residents   

Estate and lift upgrading, use of public places, invitation to community events, allocation of pubic fund etc are controlled by the PAP government and provide these to the residents according to their wishes.

You pay taxes and they collect taxes but they use for their own purpose to the group of residences that they prefer. The PAP is teaching you all those stand against the PAP are wrong no matter how good and how right they are.

Excuse me, I sit here first

In the public transport and public places, whoever occupies the seats first will have the right to use them.  So when I sit here first, please excuse me, you don’t expect me to give up my seat even you need it more than I do.

Yes, under the law, you have the right to use and occupy the seat. However, elders, disadvantaged persons and handicaps are to be considered the right persons to occupy the seats morally. So, the right morality may not necessarily to be the persons who occupy it first.

No wonder, under the culture of ‘excuse me’, the rich, powerful and healthy persons see no need to help the poor and sick. Those elites see no responsibility to serve the country and the people even the society and country provide them opportunity to be rich and powerful.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...